Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/01/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Well Jim, I have never seen anybody drooling over non-Leica lenses here - but brand-x (or y, for that matter) can make sense, costwise. For example the 2.8/21 Kobalux is only very, very very, slightly inferior to the extremely excellent 2.8/21 ASPH Elmarit (according to tests, as I have not had the chance to try either of them). But of course if you are extra careful and always use tripod you probably can demonstrate the difference. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen - -----Alkuperäinen viesti----- Lähettäjä: Jim Brick <jim@brick.org> Vastaanottaja: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>; leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Päivä: 14. tammikuuta 2001 3:52 Aihe: [Leica] Re: RE: Cosina still at it >Thanks Doug, > >That's why I asked the question. Not to harangue anyone, but to see how >people extolled Leica enthusiasm simultaneously with drooling over brand-x >Leica knock-offs. > >Jim > > >At 05:09 PM 1/13/01 -0800, Doug Herr wrote: >>On Sat, 13 January 2001, Jim Brick wrote: >> >>> >>> David, your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You are saying that >>> you only care about those types of photographs that you do often. Those >>> that you do seldom, well, they can suffer lesser quality because... because >>> of what? Aren't all photographs that you take of equal importance? Do you >>> single out certain photographs that don't have to hold up to Leica standard >>> while others must? >>> >>> I would be interested in hearing why the amount of use of a lens gets can >>> possibly dictate the quality needed for the lens. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Jim >> >>For me it's a resource allocation issue. For my wildlife photos (i.e., >the ones I can sell) I won't use anything less than a Telyt but for family >snaps, a Nikkor on an FG will do. If I were to replace the 43-86 zoom with >an equivalent Leica Vario-R there's be no $$ left for film, mortgage, >groceries, etc. >> >>Doug Herr >